Either. Taken on its own, it was an achievement for flat panels, but that doesn't mean it was good. Black is still very grey on those original Kuros, relative to a CRT or not. Relative to other flat panels? Yeah, it might be better than most. (still)

That is fine. Your earlier comments were suggesting the jump in technology and performance was minor. "Taken on its own" or not, it was a very large and surprising improvement given what was known about FP technology at the time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chronoptimist

I appreciate that it was an improvement, but it was very over-hyped.

There are a ton of examples of over-hyping irrelevant technology and developments in FP technology. KURO was NOT one of them and I cannot fathom you would even think it was unless your context is skewed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chronoptimist

If we had results like the second generation of Kuros first out the gate, where it was a big jump in contrast over most other flat panels at the time, I would have been impressed. (but still not happy) At 3500:1 or so when calibrated, it's not that high contrast.

What comparisons are you exactly making? Pioneer itself reported in SID literature a reduction in black level of 5x versus any previous models. Of course it was very dependent on size at that point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chronoptimist

Local-dimming definitely seems like a far more "low tech" solution than the improvements made with the Kuro, but it's the end result that I care about.

I would not say that. Using a matrix driven backlight was a unique invention with a lot of promise. Unfortunately it does not intrinsically address LCD issues but only extrinsically improves them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chronoptimist

Can't argue with that, viewing angle on LCDs is terrible, even IPS panels, and the shift towards Edge LED... ugh. I agree that at an angle, local dimming falls apartit could be argued that a local dimming set actually looks worse than one without local dimming when viewed at an angle.

Most people don't see it. For me, even sitting in the sweet spot I still see angle/luminance issues in the peripheral areas of the screen on any LCD or LED thanks to the small angle of view change due to the width of the screen. Of course I like to sit close so that doesn't help

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chronoptimist

Like I said, when I'm actually sitting in front of the screen, watching a film, I just don't see it the majority of the time.

I suspect most do not. Unfortunately I'm very sensitive to BL non-uniformity in any form. Not sure why. Even PDP non-uniformity in black bugs me but to a lesser degree. My 141FD had, what I thought, was an extremely visible black non-uniformity oval shape. The only reason I did not HATE it was that it eventually faded away to a uniform solid black after a few months.

It's more than just the contrast/viewing angles that are impressive with the Crystal LED Display, check out the clarity of the text here:
(ignore the dark bands, it's a photograph at 1/60s of a scanning display)

The next generation of displays (OLED, and others if they actually get released) are very exciting.

Is that photo of a static video signal or a motion signal? Is the camera hand held with a long shutter time? That raster type scan visible on the CLED would produce an impulse type image with a short hold time.

As soon as you get off-axis at all, local dimming LED starts looking really bad, ut doesn't have to be an extreme angle. It's especially noticeable compared to a non-locally dimmed set, because the zone structure shows up in a very obvious way.

It's more than just the contrast/viewing angles that are impressive with the Crystal LED Display, check out the clarity of the text here:
(ignore the dark bands, it's a photograph at 1/60s of a scanning display)

The next generation of displays (OLED, and others if they actually get released) are very exciting.

What I see is that colors are way off on the CLED. Inscription is much thinner on the CLED but I am not sure if this signs blur on the HX.

What comparisons are you exactly making? Pioneer itself reported in SID literature a reduction in black level of 5x versus any previous models. Of course it was very dependent on size at that point.

If I recall correctly, Pioneer's plasmas actually had some of the lowest contrast relative to others prior to the Kuros. Other TVs released that year were in the 1,500-2,000:1 contrast range when calibrated. (and when I say that, I mean peak white at 100 nits to keep measurements on a level playing field) Black level on the original Kuros was 0.03 nits I think?

If Pioneer's literature reported a 5x increase in contrast, I have to assume part of that is due to brightness increases in addition to the black level improvements they made. Or perhaps the 1080p models? I forget if they were higher contrast or not. I seem to recall the smaller Kuros having deeper black levels.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xrox

Most people don't see it. For me, even sitting in the sweet spot I still see angle/luminance issues in the peripheral areas of the screen on any LCD or LED thanks to the small angle of view change due to the width of the screen. Of course I like to sit close so that doesn't help

I see it too, it's by far the worst with S-PVA panels though. Right now, there's no display that is objectively better than the rest. Whether you go with PDP or locally-dimmed LCD depends on where you want to compromise.

I can't compromise on things like gradation, flicker, phosphor lag, the ability to use the display as a computer monitor, having a good image during the day. (any serious film watching is done in the dark though)

Other people can't compromise on not having a good picture when you're sitting off to the side, the possibility of blooming showing up etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xrox

I suspect most do not. Unfortunately I'm very sensitive to BL non-uniformity in any form. Not sure why. Even PDP non-uniformity in black bugs me but to a lesser degree. My 141FD had, what I thought, was an extremely visible black non-uniformity oval shape. The only reason I did not HATE it was that it eventually faded away to a uniform solid black after a few months.

I'll have to actually find the time to measure uniformity on this one time. There's no reason for a local dimming set to not have great uniformity, unless you are pushing for maximum brightness.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xrox

Is that photo of a static video signal or a motion signal? Is the camera hand held with a long shutter time? That raster type scan visible on the CLED would produce an impulse type image with a short hold time.

It's a moving image, and the shutter speed is 1/60s. (which is not particularly quick) Not sure if the camera was hand-held. As it's 1/60s, my assumption would be that it isn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by irkuck

What I see is that colors are way off on the CLED. Inscription is much thinner on the CLED but I am not sure if this signs blur on the HX.

I don't think there's any way you could judge colour from a photograph. On my calibrated display, it looks like the image on the HX929 is rather green, but as I said, you really can't judge colour from that.

Is that photo of a static video signal or a motion signal? Is the camera hand held with a long shutter time? That raster type scan visible on the CLED would produce an impulse type image with a short hold time.

Two photos taken of the Sharp 8K TV at CES (4227x2532). The grain is from the photo camera as it can not fully resolve 33MP TV image.

(click on thumbnail for full view/large file 10 MP)

Awesome images but these 8K sets are at least 10-15 years off. Now 4K is starting to actually show up. Here is a review of the 4K Toshiba 55ZL2 and the reviewers seem to think with the right content, the jump in resolution is as obvious as 480p to 1080p. This is the first time I have heard of someone stating it was that noticeable, especially on a relatively small 55" screen.

Yes, I don't know how I arrived at that 4.7M number. Must have been a typo when doing the calculations, it's a bigger difference than I previously stated.

The jump from SD to HD was 6x. (5x for PAL)
The jump from HD to 4K is 4x.

Not as big a jump when you look at it that way, but the difference in resolution is far greater.

There are 4K displays on the market, and more due this year. I don't see the comparison you're trying to make.

The only explanation I have for it is that most of the videophiles here are fine with the compromises you make with a Plasma display, and rarely/never use their display for PC/Games. With film content, some of the drawbacks from PDPs are less visible.

I think in 24 months we will know whether 4k is farce as some assume. Just as now more and more people come to agree huge TV is getting accepted. We need one for the other to work.

As for video/film, you should know Y'CC and PC RGB are different. Videophiles by definition looks at video/film. If that's your definition as well, then it is clear which tech is superior AT THIS TIME.

Nonethless I think in future they will converge to RGB, and gamut should be expanded for better gradation.

I agree with you that plasma looks worse in ambience lighting. This is inherent in the tech as the internal reflection of plasma is why we see greenish grey when photographed while Liquid Crystals are designed to block off light, external or internal. This would have little relevance in a dark room.

Here is a review of the 4K Toshiba 55ZL2 and the reviewers seem to think with the right content, the jump in resolution is as obvious as 480p to 1080p. This is the first time I have heard of someone stating it was that noticeable, especially on a relatively small 55" screen.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZtiJLWsvlc

Do they say what was the viewing distance? What was the 'right' content?
I wonder if somebody craving for best viewing experience would prefer 55" 4K OLED over top-range 70" locdim LCD

I don't think there's any way you could judge colour from a photograph. On my calibrated display, it looks like the image on the HX929 is rather green, but as I said, you really can't judge colour from that.

These pics are strange: notice shadow on the water in the lower part of the CLED which is not present in the HX. While colors can't be judged from photos what mat be judged is differences in color tonations, CLED looks to much green to me vs. HX929 Obviously we do not know how well was the HX929 calibrated Anyway, a well-known fact is that calibrated HX929 shows extremely good skin colors, life-like and neutral. Would like to see skin colors on this CLED.

I don't think there's any way you could judge colour from a photograph. On my calibrated display, it looks like the imago on the HX929 is rather green, but as i said, you really can't judge colour from that

Quote:

Originally Posted by irkuck;

These pics are strange: notice shadow on the water in the lower part of the CLED which is not present in the HX. While colors can't be judged from photos what mat be judged is differences in color tonations, CLED looks to much green to me vs. HX929 Obviously we do not know how well was the HX929 calibrated Anyway, a well-known fact is that calibrated HX929 shows extremely good skin colors, life-like and neutral. Would like to see skin colors on this CLED.

It would be a big surprise if those colors would be same in real world (CLED is on the left). I don't believe they were able to calibrate the CLED prototype proper.

Do they say what was the viewing distance? What was the 'right' content?
I wonder if somebody craving for best viewing experience would prefer 55" 4K OLED over top-range 70" locdim LCD

I don't believe either the LG or Samsung OLED sets are 4K. For me, I don't think I would consider anything below a 60" for my next home theater display, but many here seem to want the smaller sizes. It is really going to be an interesting race to see were the consumers dollars go. I think OLED might get stuck in the high end/expensive/low volume niche, where the 4K-ICC eventually becomes the standard. It may come down to who can get them out the fastest and cheapest. The OLED set are still looking like mid to late 2013 at the earliest. The fact the Sharp has not released price or availability on their 60" and 70" 4K is not a good sign either. Think these are some new pics of the Sharp 70" 4K from CES 2012.

Samsung's OLED can't possibly be 4K for a while, due to their mfg. method. LG's might be closer, but given they are stuck on 8G and therefore limited to 55 and 60" as practical max sizes, don't bet on it.

As for Sharp, it's wrong to read the lack of pricing and dates as having any meaning. Yes, the 4K TVs are due only later in 2012, but I have every reason to believe they are committed. Sharp also is riding a credibility wave right now, having delivered mass-market 70" TVs last year, the Elites, and an 80" that a lot of people could actually consider spending the coin on -- it wasn't insanely priced at all.

They want to bring out 4K and at least part of the reason is to establish their technological leadership in display. They will do so and barring delays in 2012. Look for 60s and 70s and quite possibly 80s.

There's a saying about "everything in moderation". If only it was applied to well, you know...

Some of these pics best support my need for 4K; for split screen or PIP. Currently with 1080p, I can split screen half for video and half for PC. The text on the PC side is unreadable, even on my 60" screen.

Those OLED sets are definitely 2K but the point was not if they are 4K. There is consideration if OLED has not missed its train, or the best cars in the train. This is due to the fact that the 55" size is now too small to have big appeal for large segment of those who hunt for best viewing experience. With wide selection of 65"-90" becoming available there is opinion spreading that it is better to go bigger even at a cost of slightly reduced PQ. Thus, the 55" OLEDs will face tough competition on price from the same size LEDs and the best experience competition from the bigger LEDs. This gives a case for being squeezed out ot the market.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sytech

Think these are some new pics of the Sharp 70" 4K from CES 2012.

Let's be clear: reading newspapers on-screen is not a TV viewing scenario and it does not seem to be that convenient, the ultra clear font on 4K is not relevant then from the distance of 4PH. Ib turn, such font would be of utmost importance for computer monitors but manufs prefer to avoid the obvious advantage in favor of exploiting consumer ignorance.

Let's be clear: reading newspapers on-screen is not a TV viewing scenario and it does not seem to be that convenient, the ultra clear font on 4K is not relevant then from the distance of 4PH. Ib turn, such font would be of utmost importance for computer monitors but manufs prefer to avoid the obvious advantage in favor of exploiting consumer ignorance.

It's not really about reading the paper in my experience. I have an HTPC and there were times when something was on tv that I wanted to have on in the background while I also wanted to browse online to shop for something or to use a word processor. The font on the browser was not legible nor was the font on the OS legible. Honestly, strange but I find it hard to read the font when I use my 60" as a 100% dedicated computer monitor. The larger pixels make it hard on the eyes.

I know gamers would love to have a tv programming, ie football game, on one side of the screen while playing their video game on the other, either split screen or PIP. Even simpler, they would love their tv to have the same resolution as their computer monitor so that they don't need to have to buy both.

Or maybe you want to watch 2 or 3 different football games at the same time. 4k would help given if the broadcasting technology is still behind at 1080p.

As it is now, my HTPC is essentially useless other than I can stream music to my AVR.

Those OLED sets are definitely 2K but the point was not if they are 4K. There is consideration if OLED has not missed its train, or the best cars in the train. This is due to the fact that the 55" size is now too small to have big appeal for large segment of those who hunt for best viewing experience. With wide selection of 65"-90" becoming available there is opinion spreading that it is better to go bigger even at a cost of slightly reduced PQ. Thus, the 55" OLEDs will face tough competition on price from the same size LEDs and the best experience competition from the bigger LEDs. This gives a case for being squeezed out ot the market.

Let's be clear: reading newspapers on-screen is not a TV viewing scenario and it does not seem to be that convenient, the ultra clear font on 4K is not relevant then from the distance of 4PH. Ib turn, such font would be of utmost importance for computer monitors but manufs prefer to avoid the obvious advantage in favor of exploiting consumer ignorance.

1) Is this offical: That you have turned positive on huge size?

2) I think you mean 3PH which you have been sayng throughout this thread.

It's not really about reading the paper in my experience. I have an HTPC and there were times when something was on tv that I wanted to have on in the background while I also wanted to browse online to shop for something or to use a word processor. The font on the browser was not legible nor was the font on the OS legible. Honestly, strange but I find it hard to read the font when I use my 60" as a 100% dedicated computer monitor. The larger pixels make it hard on the eyes.

So you use you TV as a computer monitor meaning viewing distance is on the order of 1PH? Then obviously this is not TV viewing scenario and the TV is not designed for this. 4K is fine then, question is how many people want to use their TVs in this way. I bet not many.

Quote:

Originally Posted by a_ok2me

I know gamers would love to have a tv programming, ie football game, on one side of the screen while playing their video game on the other, either split screen or PIP. Even simpler, they would love their tv to have the same resolution as their computer monitor so that they don't need to have to buy both.Or maybe you want to watch 2 or 3 different football games at the same time. 4k would help given if the broadcasting technology is still behind at 1080p.

PIP-like stuff or using in computer monitor mode does not justify 4K yet. If the TV is watched from its designed distance of 3-4PH and the picture is split, the subpic size is smaller so even more difficult to see details brought by 4K. The condition for useful 4K is viewing distance smaller than 2.5PH. This is not common and there is doubt if it will be common if one is talking about TV located in the sitting room.

Quote:

Originally Posted by specuvestor

1) Is this offical: That you have turned positive on huge size?

You misinterpret my position. I was voicing doubts if mainstream consumers are positive on huge size. For myself I am not the mainstream consumer as you should know, my size is 65"

Quote:

Originally Posted by specuvestor

2) I think you mean 3PH which you have been sayng throughout this thread.

It is 3-4PH but the fact is mainstream is typically watching from more then 4PH and only dedicated videophilists from 3PH. Moving into 2.5PH for soaking those 4K pixels is really different scenario. I have long articulated mount and can move between the 3PH and 4PH without moving my sofa. 3PH @2K is magnificent with good sources but the display feels rather (too) close. It is likely that with huge displays in the 90" range, the 3PH distance will be feeling better.

Its funny that after seeing the 8K TV (even the OLED LG earlier), they go to samsungs booth and look at the 75" ES8000 and comment how regular HD still looks amazing. And how the eye can easily be fooled.

Im not trying to say anything about 4K not being worth it mind you, but its just an interesting observation. And its also why i said its easy to make live video look good. Not to mention Leo even mentioned how they choose the content carefully for these.

Its funny that after seeing the 8K TV (even the OLED LG earlier), they go to samsungs booth and look at the 75" ES8000 and comment how regular HD still looks amazing. And how the eye can easily be fooled.

Im not trying to say anything about 4K not being worth it mind you, but its just an interesting observation. And its also why i said its easy to make live video look good. Not to mention Leo even mentioned how they choose the content carefully for these.

Hehe, in the choir praising 4K it happened that some truth leaked out . Yes, before talking about 4K one should talk about top-quality 2K sources and displays first. With top-quality 2K sources and displays there is no need for 4K in the standard TV viewing scenario. The eye can be easily 'fooled' @2K since the 2K and source compression were designed to match the eye capabilities. Real fooling is on the 4K side: industry is fooling people how big 4K is and some people are fooling themselves how great it looks.

i get stuck with the lack of 4k content. the only content available that i can think of are from a 4k computer/console or a 4k blu ray. broadcast tv isn't even giving us full 2k now so i wouldn't expect any 4k content from them.

yeah great for a monitor, gaming or movies, but beyond that what's out there?
crappy upconverted less than 2k material?

i get stuck with the lack of 4k content. the only content available that i can think of are from a 4k computer/console or a 4k blu ray. broadcast tv isn't even giving us full 2k now so i wouldn't expect any 4k content from them.

yeah great for a monitor, gaming or movies, but beyond that what's out there?
crappy upconverted less than 2k material?

Crappy upconverted 1080i material shown by Sharp at CES on their 4k was clearly superior on said 4k display than on an adjacent 1080-line display.

I'll take that "crappy" upgrade now, thanks.

There's a saying about "everything in moderation". If only it was applied to well, you know...